1 XP license, or 2?

For what it is worth, without getting into the debate exchange, Microsoft auth support simply accepted the truth that I was doing this on a single computer, multiple system requirements for my set up. No challenge at all.

What I said was something like "I have a single computer in which I need run two identical operating systems. Can you help me with any authentication issues?" It was quick and not messy at all. I quickly volunteered my serial number without her asking---maybe I was premature on that., but anyway, the number was given to me.

 

I don't know what the fuss is about. I've installed Win XP first through BootCamp, activated through the 'net and then installed in Parallels. Activation failed and asked me to call MS. I called them, told them that I'm installing on the same computer on a virtual machine and that the two copies never run at the same time. They had no problem activating my second copy. Both copies are running just fine and are updating through MS' auto update feature. Just do it. No lying necessary, although I did _not_ mention this was on a Mac. I wasn't asked about the type of computer, anyway.

 

I would say just ignore it and ask for a second activation. Buying one copy for use may be acceptable. But a second copy (same language) on the same machine? Ridiculuous.

Boot Camp and Parallels cannot be used at the same time. So I see no problem in using the same copy in both Boot Camp and Parallels. Don't pay for a second copy just to satisfy the greedy corporation known as Microsoft (I am sure it will love for you to get a second copy.).

Just my personal opinion.

 

So XP doesn't "phone home" every few weeks and report in to check that the hardware matched the last profile registered?

I guess that is what I was concerned about -- having to call Microsoft every couple of weeks to re-activate XP, since MS got confused about whether BootCamp or Parallels was the legal version.

 

I did the exact same thing.... Installed Windows on Boot Camp, then tried to set up Parallels. When I hit the serial number problem, I called Microsoft and explained to them that I was installing it on an Intel Mac and that I couldn't boot Windows and run the virtual machine at the same time. That seemed to satisfy them. It's probably granted on an individual basis, but I had no problem.

 

Uh, we're not talking natural law here. There is no God-given right to install multiple copies of a piece of software that are running on the same CPU---simultaneous or otherwise. If Microsoft wants to be a stick in the mud, by instituting licensing terms that force us to have separate licenses for Boot Camp and Parallels, that's their prerogative.

So let's not kid anyone. If you choose to lie to Microsoft in order to do the install, that's your choice. But you're not a "victim" being forced to lie by an evil corporate entity; you are simply someone who feels like lying to save a few bucks. And that's kind of funny, really, given that you paid a premium to get your hands on the first Intel Macs to come down the pike.

Certainly, I'm encouraged by the folks in this thread for whom Microsoft seemed cooperative, despite their frank description of what they were doing. But I suspect that, at any moment, Microsoft could "educate" their activation support staff; and their behavior would change overnight.

At the same time, Microsoft could also come out with an explicit policy permitting this kind of parallel install, and I would welcome it. I certainly think it should.

 

But this isn't a new ability to run multiple versions of Windows on the same machine. VMWare for PC's has been available for years (since before XP). I'm assuming that if you try to install XP as the host OS and a guest OS in that environment, you have the same issue.

Ok -- I just dashed over to the VMWware forum. It looks like the issue is similarly cloudy there too.

 

Interesting about the VMware situation being cloudy, that's an awful long time for that to be so.

That said, I've never used VMware so I may not be understanding, but can't it load over a server and stuff though? I don't believe that is the case (at least so far) with Parallels.